Seminars in ophthalmology · 2016
Unusual Surprises in Glaucoma Filtering Surgeries: Lessons Learned and Review of Literature.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rao Aparna, Padhy Debananda, Roy Avik Kumar, Senthil Sirisha
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To describe an unusual series of complications after glaucoma filtering surgeries with their clinical findings and outcome after tailored non-conventional modes of therapy.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighteen patients who underwent re-interventions (medical or surgical) after glaucoma filtering surgeries during the period at two tertiary centers, excluding those that required conventional modes of treatment (medical control or re-trabeculectomy, simple wound closure for traumatic wound dehiscence, bleb revision or needling, laser iridotomy), were included. Relevant clinical details with intraoperative videos, intraoperative or postoperative problems, and images with course after re-intervention were retrieved from the hospital database. Clinical details which helped in clinching diagnosis and cause for problems and course after intervention with final vision and intraocular pressure were evaluated.
RESULTS: Six of 18 eyes required surgical management for an unusual course of events after an uneventful filtering surgery. Bleb morphology and close follow-up of the conjunctiva, in addition to intraocular pressure (IOP) and anterior chamber (AC) configuration, helped diagnose possible aetiology and appropriate tailored management. All patients had good IOP and visual outcome in all except one with macular scar status after retinal detachment surgery.
CONCLUSION: Assessment of the bleb morphology in the postoperative course coupled with monitoring of the conjunctival wound are essential to conventional monitoring of IOP and anterior chamber configuration to arrive at appropriate management for rare unusual events after glaucoma surgery.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighteen patients who underwent re-interventions (medical or surgical) after glaucoma filtering surgeries during the period at two tertiary centers, excluding those that required conventional modes of treatment (medical control or re-trabeculectomy, simple wound closure for traumatic wound dehiscence, bleb revision or needling, laser iridotomy), were included. Relevant clinical details with intraoperative videos, intraoperative or postoperative problems, and images with course after re-intervention were retrieved from the hospital database. Clinical details which helped in clinching diagnosis and cause for problems and course after intervention with final vision and intraocular pressure were evaluated.
RESULTS: Six of 18 eyes required surgical management for an unusual course of events after an uneventful filtering surgery. Bleb morphology and close follow-up of the conjunctiva, in addition to intraocular pressure (IOP) and anterior chamber (AC) configuration, helped diagnose possible aetiology and appropriate tailored management. All patients had good IOP and visual outcome in all except one with macular scar status after retinal detachment surgery.
CONCLUSION: Assessment of the bleb morphology in the postoperative course coupled with monitoring of the conjunctival wound are essential to conventional monitoring of IOP and anterior chamber configuration to arrive at appropriate management for rare unusual events after glaucoma surgery.